View source for LGPedia talk:Deletion Policy

{{pending discussion|Lesser Deletion Policy}}
It's become apparent that we could use a deletion policy here at the LGpedia.  Let's '''''respectfully''''' discuss ideas here.--[[User:JayHenry|JayHenry]] 13:25, 1 December 2006 (CST)

:Articles that have complaints brought against them, need to be either defended by its editors with '''citable facts''' or else yield to the edits of the complainant who must introduce citable facts of their own.

:Any article that is an inflammatory expression of opinion should be deleted as well -- [[User:Twjaniak|Twjaniak]] 13:44, 1 December 2006 (CST)

Good idea Jayhenry..--[[User:Iris2009|Iris2009]]

:This could be added to the LGpedia page where several other questions are answered.--[[User:Modelmotion|modelmotion]] 13:32, 1 December 2006 (CST)

I added a section to the LGpedia page that direct pple here for discussion. --[[User:Modelmotion|modelmotion]] 14:44, 1 December 2006 (CST)

*I feel strongly that articles should be relevant to lonelygirl15.  There are a tremendous amount of articles that are completely unrelated to lonelygirl15 or are based entirely off speculation.
*While I'm not suggesting we eliminate all speculation from the LGpedia, I don't think that every single speculative item deserves its own page.  This makes the LGpedia cluttered, and for users who are here for information, it has become impossible to tell what information is relevant, and what information is not.

::I would certainly object to this point.  Speculation is a huge part of what LG15 is about and it is useful to collect prominent theories and related evidence in LGPedia so that people don't have to hunt through the forums to find information relating to their questions.  Some of the most useful pages on this site are heavily speculative (e.g., [[canon]]).  I think that speculation should not be deleted from LGPedia, provided it is clearly relevant.  I do, however, think it is necessary to clearly denote what is speculative and to separate it from information that has been confirmed by the videos.  --[[User:Treefunk|Treefunk]] 13:31, 2 December 2006 (CST)

*I also feel strongly that one valid reason that the community can decide to delete a page is for purposes of reorganization.  We have a huge amount of very, very bad articles, simply because there is not enough information to justify everything having its own article.  I think the community should be able to decide that information should be reorganized.--[[User:JayHenry|JayHenry]] 15:24, 1 December 2006 (CST)

I think we must consider the context of LG in the matrix of our current social/religious/scientific society.  The Creators clearly wanted us to think and they have accomplished that.  In some cases Mesh himself maybe the only person who actually knows whether or not a train of thought is relevant and even then he may be reading LGpedia to find out where fans are taking the clues in their own research.  All this needs to be considered before deleting a page and perhaps Mesh could act as a resource in the process.--[[User:Modelmotion|modelmotion]] 15:43, 1 December 2006 (CST)

I think one thing we could use is a "controversial tag" like wikipedia uses.  That might be a good starting point for content that is not blatantly offensive.  Let the users discuss the controversy openly. As that develops it should become clear if the page deserves a deletion tag or not.--[[User:Modelmotion|modelmotion]] 18:13, 1 December 2006 (CST)

I think that in some cases the deletion tage should be changed to on  "Merged" instead of "Deleted". I think its intuitively obvious that when two pages are merged that one of them will be deleted. I think the name of the final merged page should be then stated as part of the tag. The term deletion should be reserved for pages where the content is irrelevant etc and the content is goint go be removed along with the page.--[[User:Modelmotion|modelmotion]] 14:59, 2 December 2006 (CST)

== The Process ==

I propose the following process, spam pages, vandalism pages, empty pages, and inflammatory pages can be deleted by admins without an extended process.  For other pages, I propose that they be nominated for deletion, and then there's a one-week period for discussion and improvement (if possible), at the end of which we vote and act according to the vote.--[[User:JayHenry|JayHenry]] 11:57, 2 December 2006 (CST)

:I second this motion -- [[User:Twjaniak|Twjaniak]] 12:15, 2 December 2006 (CST)

"I propose the following process, spam pages, vandalism pages, empty pages, and inflammatory pages can be deleted by admins without an extended process." - I think that goes without saying,  The only tricky one might be inflammatory but i think we have to trust the admins to use their discretion.  However there should probably be an appeal process if someone feel that the deletion was not appropirate (which let hope never happens).--[[User:Modelmotion|modelmotion]] 15:03, 2 December 2006 (CST)

"For other pages, I propose that they be nominated for deletion, and then there's a one-week period for discussion and improvement (if possible), at the end of which we vote and act according to the vote" I think it would be helpful if there was a wider ranges on choices for the time period.  I appreciated the 30 days that Tw game me with the location pages and i think with something like that you need a bit more time.  In other instances 7 days would probably suffice.  I think a range of 7 -30 days would be better and leave it up to the admins to chose whats appropriate for any given circumstance.  Again their would be the right of appeal of the person feels that the time span chosen is inappropriate.--[[User:Modelmotion|modelmotion]] 15:07, 2 December 2006 (CST)

"at the end of which we vote and act according to the vote"- by we I am assuming that you are referring to the admins.  That probably the only way it could work practically.  However I feel that the appeal process should involve an arbitration board consisting of both users and admins.  Perhaps something like 3 users and 2 admins would be the best way to ensure we have a system of checks and balances.  Remember this is only for an appeal and in most regular circumstances that should not impede the admins.--[[User:Modelmotion|modelmotion]] 15:11, 2 December 2006 (CST)

By the way "seconding a motion" is a committe term that has specific meanings.  I am assuming that Tw was just using the term to mean that he agrees because as far as I know there is no committee and no rules of order so in that context I do not know what he means.--[[User:Modelmotion|modelmotion]] 15:14, 2 December 2006 (CST)

I like the process as it was described, but I have my doubts about the appeals system.  I think the admins need to have final say.  Especially if there is a 7-30 day long period to discuss, we should really avoid drawing it out any longer after that.  Let's not make it onerous to delete articles that need to go.  [[User:OwenIsCool|OwenIsCool]] 15:34, 2 December 2006 (CST)

:I seriously doubt that there would be a lot of use of the appeal process, however its existence does give the system and escape valve for anyone who feel really committed.  The deletion could go ahead as schedule but if the user felt it was not fair they would still have a mechanism to vent their case.  I think it also keeps checks and balances in place and that was one of the smartest things the framers of the US constitution created, so why not learn from the best:)--[[User:Modelmotion|modelmotion]] 15:47, 2 December 2006 (CST)

::Well, how about we say "no less than 7 days."  As for appeals, we need someway to reinstate a page.  I recently deleted a page on Vampyrism, but if Bree turned out to be a vampire we'd obviously want to reinstate it.  Of course, the only reason I can imagine overturning a deletion decision is if new information in the series changes the relevance of a page.--[[User:JayHenry|JayHenry]] 10:55, 3 December 2006 (CST)

==Lesser Deletion Policy==
''Discussion of policy for removing content additions from existing pages:''
The policy described on this page applies to deletion of entire pages, and describes a process for those cases.  There are a range of lesser deletions that happen in the course of normal use of the LGPedia, from typo corrections, to information corrections or additions, to formatting, etc., that normally require no such process, and that seems reasonable much of the time.  However, occasionally something added and considered good content by one user is deleted by another who has a different opinion.  In such cases, a 'Lesser Deletion Policy' of some sort would be a good idea for the same reasons as the Page Deletion Policy (fostering respect, reducing conflicts, etc.).  I'm not sure if such a policy would be amended on this page, or whether it would go on a new linked page.  I would suggest that it include some of the following ideas: 
* '''1.''' When deleting or reverting the contribution of another user, it is strongly encouraged to include a comment explaining the reason for the deletion.
* '''2.''' If the deletion appears to be a matter of personal preference rather than a clearly stated policy of the LGPedia, the deletion may be fairly contested and the material may be restored and if it is, should not be deleted again prior to first proposing it's lasting deletion on that page's talk page, and allowing some reasonable period of time for discussion and agreement.  The goal is to reach a mutually agreeable solution or compromise, or at least understanding, and avoid back and forth editing or ill will that may result.
* '''3.''' Possible resolutions are an alternate (better) location for the content, a modified form for the content, or removal entirely of the content, once the reasons are understood and agreed to.
* '''4.''' If no easy resolution comes about through discussion on the talk page, then LGPedia staff may need to facilitate a compromise or make a final decision.  
* '''5.''' If a reasonable time for discussion, and attempts with the help of staff to reach a compromise still fail to satisfy those involved, then a vote may be requested as in the process for page deletions. ''(Note: I'm not familiar with how a vote as mentioned above actually works, so this may or may not make sense here)'' 
* '''6.''' If a more general issue or policy question arises from a particular instance, that discussion should be added where appropriate.
* '''7.''' A summary page of past content policy resolutions (possibly in FAQ or Q and A format) should be maintained, to enable consistency and possibly guide and simplify future editing decisions.  This would be a good thing to point to in a future editing comment, i.e.  'Per the Content Guide...'
:I agree with you in principal, QtheC, but how does one define "good content"? We can't run off of an objective standard here. I mean, honestly, it could be the opinion of one person that a statement that Katherine Pawlak is too old to play a 15-year-old is good content. Doesn't mean it shouldn't be reverted. Honestly, I think what a good policy would be would be to say, if something is conflicted, and is reverted, and then the original contributor has a problem with the reversion, they should start a discussion as to why they believe their content is deserving a place on the page, ''without adding it back in''.
:AFAIK, this is how things are currently run, even if it is not formally stated as such. (Also, you know as well as I do that there isn't a summary box available when you hit that "revert" button.) - [[User:Shiori|Shiori]] 16:22, 20 March 2008 (CDT)
:* I'm by no means a wiki expert, and I don't see a "revert" button, but when I look at the history page, I see "undo" after each change, and when I hit this I get a comment box with a default Summary comment that looks like this: "<nowiki>Undo revision 113515 by [[Special:Contributions/QtheC|QtheC]] ([[User talk:QtheC|Talk]])</nowiki>."  That comment can be edited before saving the undo, so perhaps that is the right way to back out the most recent change?  Direct editing of course, always allows for a Summary comment.
:* As for "good content" that is always going to be somewhat subjective, and surely differences of opinion may arise.  In the example you mention of Katherine Pawlak's age, an alternative wording might make that statement more acceptable changing it from an opinion to information about her actual vs. portrayed age.  So the procedure I am suggesting is 1. delete or modify the content with a comment (if no one objects, that's that), 2. if the content is restored, a discussion is required before a second deletion (unless this restoration is overridden by staff) 3. discussion, resolution suggestions, help by staff if needed, possible vote if all else fails 4. final change is put in place
:* The difference here seems to be whether the content is restored during the discussion period.  I favor (temporary) restoration because it encourages addition of content and pushes the discussion toward justifying removal, rather than justifying addition.  To me that seems like a more respectful process, and will tend to encourage finding an alternate form or location for content rather than the discouraging experience of having ones contribution erased entirely.  In order to maximize participation and enjoyment, the bias should be toward inclusiveness rather than exclusiveness.  It is possible that some of the more strictly formatted pages (such as Video transcripts) would reasonably be kept clear of unusual additions (things that alter the formatting especially) until they were approved, but that more general use topic pages that tend to vary one to the next would be handled more as I have suggested.

::Thanks for your insights, QtheC. I think I understand your position much better now, and I appreciate that you've started this discussion. Relating to your proposed guidelines:
::#I agree here, but exceptions can of course be made for obvious vandalism, spam, etc (as you say). As far as how easy this is to do, I think Shiori is referring to the "rollback" button, which does ''not'' allow the user to enter an edit summary, but simply undoes the edit. However, there are other ways to revert (the "undo" button is one; the other way is to click on a previous version of the page, go to edit, then save it.) These other ways allow a summary to be entered, and really, it's not that much more work than the "rollback" button and could prevent a lot of potential problems.
::#I'll come back to this one (see below).
::#Sounds good to me.
::#If by "staff", you mean admins, then that sounds good. ''However'', I would hope things would rarely reach this point (I mean really, it's like when mommy has to break up the fight because the kids can't work it out).
::#Yeah, I'm not sure this would apply. If even the admins can't make a decision, that's pretty pathetic.
::#Again, sounds good.
::#Well, we do have a [[LGPedia:Policy]] page, which has ''barely'' been edited, so maybe we could expand that. Regardless, we do need to keep a record of policies so that they can be cited.
::Now, on the issue of whether to keep the disputed edit on the page during the discussion, I'd like to hear other peoples' opinions.  I think there are good arguments on both sides, so I'd like to hear what other people think.--[[User:Jonpro|Jonpro]] 18:44, 20 March 2008 (CDT)

:The rollback link is not available to all users, only spam patrol and upwards. Hence why QtheC is likely not familiar with it.
:Frankly, I don't understand what this discussion is about. The deletion (and addition) process for parts of pages is very simple:
:#Delete (or add) the part
:#If no one contests it, go to 6.
:#If somebody reverts your edit, initiate a discussion on the talk page, outlining why you want the part deleted (or added)
:#Discuss
:#Finish discussion, either through abandonment, consent, administrative decree, or admin-supervised vote.
:#Accept the outcome and continue your pedia work
:Let's be honest, the whole "personal preference" angle is only in there because of recent trouble you two had. Either side is going to accuse the other side of their version just being a personal preference, not factually right. That doesn't really work as an objective criterion.
:Fact is, the burden of proof always lies with the acting side. If you delete (or add) something, it is on you to prove that it's the right thing to do - not on the other side to prove that there is a reason to contest it.
::~ [[User:Renegade|Renegade]] ([[User talk:Renegade|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Renegade|contribs]]) 20:04, 21 March 2008 (CDT)

:So, let's take an example, Renegade.  Today I made an addition to the [[Crystal Young]] page which you promptly deleted, leaving only the comment "wtf?" on the history - not very helpful.  So, am I expected in your process to initiate a discussion before reverting your deletion, or is it acceptable for me to revert your deletion, and the obligation reverts to you to initiate a discussion to justify why you think the content should be deleted.  For now, I did the former - but I think this kind of process emphasizes the negative and is not conducive to growing participation.

:As I discussed above, my view is that the bias of the LGPedia should be toward respecting and encouraging contributions, raising the bar and obligation to justify removing material rather than adding it.  If you want to remove something, you should leave a substantive reason why in the first place, and if it is restored, then seek alternative locations, form, or appropriate alterations if possible.  
:: ~ [[User:QtheC|QtheC]] 20:27, 26 March 2008 (CDT)

::You were expected to initiate a discussion, just as you did. I realize the summary may not have been helpful, but Shiori already explained on [[Talk:Crystal Young]] how it came to that. 
::As for your "free additions for everyone" policy, it's simply beyond reality. If I go to the main page and overlay it with a giant picture of a pink pony, ''I'' have to justify why it should go on there - not the one who reverts why it shouldn't.
::Your suggested procedures lack an important basis to work from: Consent. Let us take Crystal's page as an exaple - it has existed for some time now, without an Other Appearences section. This means two things: 1. Nobody contested that the page works without it. 2. Nobody thought it was necessary to add it.
::And now you come to add one. Now if everybody else is in silent consent that the section-less page works and doesn't ''need'' the section, and you are the only one contesting that, why should your altered, disputed page become the basis of the discussion, when the old page worked fine for everybody but you?
::Let me reiterate that: The old page worked fine for days and weeks, until one person disputed its current state (you). You changed it, and practically immediately, your version was disputed (by me). To take the new, instant-disputed page as the basis for discussion, instead of the old page, that, for weeks, went undisputed, is just not logical.
::The basis for discussion has to be the unaltered state of the page - only then you can discuss how to alter it.
::Hell, you don't go and spraypaint somebody's car red, only to ask ''afterwards'': "Hey, do you mind that I spraypainted your car?", do you?
:::~ [[User:Renegade|Renegade]] ([[User talk:Renegade|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Renegade|contribs]]) 02:35, 27 March 2008 (CDT)
:::Good grief, that is some really strange thinking.  You have defined adding a section with new content to an old page as "disputing" that page.  The reason for adding a new section is to accomodate new content that did not exist previously on a particular page, and does not fit into previous sections.  Such an addition is in no way "disputing" the previous content on the page, and the lack of such an addition by others (who could not possibly have anticipated the newly existing content) is meaningless.  Your extreme examples of pink ponies and spraypainting someone else's car and such are off point - they simply do not compare reasonably to the suggestions I have made, or to any additions of content I am advocating. 
:::Casting aside an Orwellian redefinition of what it means to "dispute" content, in the context of this discussion "disputing" content means questioning the addition of information, the location of information, or the format of information.  There is no timeframe implied.  Addition does not equal Dispute. 
:::What I have suggested was clearly and well-stated in my previous comment, and other than restating it, I can't really add much.  My point is that the focus should be on encouraging well-intended content addtions, and finding ways to include rather than exclude information in this shared resource.  Within this focus, it makes sense that there will be some more strictly formatted pages that are core LGPedia reference material (such as the home index pages and the video description pages), and some more loosely formatted pages (such as fan pages).  Please don't extrapolate from that reasonable position to an absurd one - that's unfair and unreasonable.
:::As for Consent, which I agree is an important concept, the process I defined does allow for Consent, but with an emphasis on encouraging additions of content.  This is the central topic we are discussing here, as stated by Jonpro above, "the issue of whether to keep the disputed edit on the page during the discussion."
::::~ [[User:QtheC|QtheC]] 13:01, 6 April 2008 (CDT)

::::{{quote|QtheC|Good grief, that is some really strange thinking.  You have defined adding a section with new content to an old page as "disputing" that page.  The reason for adding a new section is to accomodate new content that did not exist previously on a particular page, and does not fit into previous sections.  Such an addition is in no way "disputing" the previous content on the page, and the lack of such an addition by others (who could not possibly have anticipated the newly existing content) is meaningless.  Your extreme examples of pink ponies and spraypainting someone else's car and such are off point - they simply do not compare reasonably to the suggestions I have made, or to any additions of content I am advocating.}}
::::You would not try to add a section if you were of the opinion that the page is complete in its current form. As such, by adding the section, ''you are diputing the page's previous state'' and proposing a better version. It's ridiculous you're even arguing against this - after all, if you were fine with the page as it is, you wouldn't care if somebody reverted your change. You would only care whether your change stays on the page if you actively think the page is better with your change than without it. As such, you are automatically viewing the original page as inferior to the version you submitted, and, as such, you are automatically disputing the previous state.
::::And no matter what you would like to make people believe, the lack of an addition is ''not'' meaningless. There is a reason we don't add new promo pictures in their full size directly on the main page - they don't belong there. The fact that a new promo picture isn't the first thing on the main page has nothing to to with the fact "the newly existing content" wasn't "anticipated" by the community, but simply because ''it doesn't belong there''. Yes. Of course somebody has to be the first one to add stuff, and the fact that nobody added something before is not automatically a sign it shouldn't be added. But to claim the leaving out of content is meaningless is absolute bullshit. The longer an item of content exists and is not added to a page, the higher the chance it is not added because nobody else thinks it ''should'' be added. To ignore this silently expressed community opinion shows an extremely lack of judgement and a certain amount of arrogance. I'm not saying you should not add content because nobody has added it before. But you should at least think about ''why'' it wasn't added before before you add it. If the answer is simply "Because it didn't exist before.", fine. That's reasonable. But if something has existed for months or years and wasn't added to a page, it's pretty reasonable to assume that at least a considerable amount of editors ''doesn't'' think it should go on that page. And a silently expressed majority opinion is certainly ''not'' meaningless. ~ [[User:Renegade|Renegade]]
:::::This discussion is getting way off track, but what is relevant is the fallacy of the assumption that a lack of addition of information constitutes a silent concensus that it should not be added.  There is simply too much information available to make such an assumption.  In this sense, yes, the omission of a piece of information is, in general, meaningless.  Of course, some information is deliberately omitted from specific pages or relocated or reformatted, but it is not generally valid to say that because information does not appear on a specific page, that it has been deliberately and thoughtfully excluded.
::::::~ [[User:QtheC|QtheC]] 18:34, 6 April 2008 (CDT)

::::::Okay, err...can you hang on for a second? I have to go to [[Jessica Rose]] and add that she has 10 fingers and 10 toes...
::::::<nowiki>*rolls eyes*</nowiki>
:::::::~ [[User:Renegade|Renegade]] ([[User talk:Renegade|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Renegade|contribs]]) 20:00, 6 April 2008 (CDT)

:::::::Sarcasm such as this is not helpful or appreciated.  Nor does it advance any argument.  It is inconsistent with what should be the common goal and standard use of this resource: to reach agreement efficiently and respectfully.  It also misses the mark which it aims at in this instance, the fallacy described in my previous comment.  The only way I know to reach agreement is to reply thoughtfully to what comes before point by point.  Going off in other directions causes the discussion to diverge.  ~ [[User:QtheC|QtheC]] 23:10, 6 April 2008 (CDT)

::::::::"Sarcasm"? As far as I'm concerned, that was ''your'' point - the fact that something has not been added for ages is absolutely and entirely no sign that there is a reason it has not been added. I, personally, find it to be notable that Jessica Rose is not a freak mutant. So I guess I should add that to her page.
:::::::::~ [[User:Renegade|Renegade]] ([[User talk:Renegade|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Renegade|contribs]]) 01:55, 7 April 2008 (CDT)

::::{{quote|QtheC|Casting aside an Orwellian redefinition of what it means to "dispute" content, in the context of this discussion "disputing" content means questioning the addition of information, the location of information, or the format of information.  There is no timeframe implied.  Addition does not equal Dispute.}}
::::Since I did not imply you were disputing content, your pathetic attempt to imply I'm trying to re-define words in an unrealistic, totalitarian manner is void. 
::::Addition ''does'' equal dispute of the current state of a page. By adding something to a page, you implicitly disagree with the previous state of a page - otherwise, you wouldn't try to modify it. ~ [[User:Renegade|Renegade]]
:::::Using disrespectful language like "pathetic" is not helpful.  If you scan the previous discussion it involved addition of material and possible "dispute" of those additions leading to possible deletion and/or discussion, and the proper order and method for such events.  In mid-discussion, you redefined "dispute" to be the original addition to a page rather than the subsequent deletion/discussion, emphasizing a burden to justify the addition rather than the deletion.  Calling an addition of content a "dispute" confuses the discussion without bringing closure to the original proposal. ~ [[User:QtheC|QtheC]]

::::::Please do not try to argue my points if you're incapable of grapsing them - it waste's everybody's time. By changing the original revision, you are, in essence, disputing the original state of the page. By reverting your edit, the next editor disputes ''your'' edit, disputing the dispute, if you will. These are ''two separate'' incidents. One action - one reaction. Either you didn't get anything I wrote, or you're just plain lying 'cause you couldn't come up with a real response. Either possibility invalidates your post. ~ [[User:Renegade|Renegade]]

:::::::I understood your points entirely and responded to them accordingly.  The discussion was about the process proposed and you have taken it off on a pedantic debate about the word "dispute" which serves no helpful purpose that I can see, other than to confuse the original discussion...  an EDIT (addition of content in particular) followed by a DISPUTE.  Renaming it as a DISPUTE(edit) followed by a DISPUTE(discussion) - does that accomplish anything?  I went so far as to explicitly define dispute "in the context of this discussion" and have tried to refocus the discussion on the original issue raised by Jonpro.  I'm not sure what else I can do to reach a resolution here.  ~ [[User:QtheC|QtheC]] 23:10, 6 April 2008 (CDT)

::::::::Simple question - let's if you manage to answer it just as simply: How many times have you changed a page because you absolutely and 100% agreed with it's current state?
:::::::::~ [[User:Renegade|Renegade]] ([[User talk:Renegade|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Renegade|contribs]]) 01:55, 7 April 2008 (CDT)

::::::I also find it rather amusing that you complain about ''me'' being disrespectful while ''you're'' actively violating and destroying my previous post. How about you develop a basic sense of politeness before you start complaining about others?
:::::::~ [[User:Renegade|Renegade]] ([[User talk:Renegade|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Renegade|contribs]]) 20:00, 6 April 2008 (CDT)

:::::::What are you talking about?  I didn't violate or destroy anything.  Unless you mean by inserting responses within your text?  I'm adding some "~ QtheC" and "~ Renegade" back in now since both of our replies may make it unclear which text was added by who.  As for you saying I don't understand what you are saying, quite the contrary, except when you say baseless things like stating that I am somehow lying by disagreeing with you.  If you interpret disagreement as impolite, that's an incorrect interpretation.  Or am I considered impolite for saying "that's not helpful" in response to disrespectful language on your part?  I'm not the one here resorting to sarcasm and using descriptives like "absolute bullshit", etc.  These kinds of actions do nothing to achieve agreement or foster an atmosphere of respect.  ~ [[User:QtheC|QtheC]] 23:10, 6 April 2008 (CDT)

::::::::Yeah...right...you destroyed nothing...I totally did post 10000 tiny little snippets instead of one whole post. *rolls eyes*
::::::::I wrote a post. That's mine, and there are only two people who have the right to alter it: Me, and The Administration. If you want to reply to sub-points, use the quote template.
:::::::::~ [[User:Renegade|Renegade]] ([[User talk:Renegade|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Renegade|contribs]]) 01:55, 7 April 2008 (CDT)

:::::Refocusing on the core issue, let's consider the implications of your bias towards justification by the original editor.  Imagine someone undoing numerous changes or additions made by you or anyone else, and demanding a discussion on every issue... it quickly devolves into a very discouraging and unproductive cycle.  The goal here should be to provide a process that encourages contribution and resolves differences efficiently and respectfully when they arise.  Why would you oppose such a process? ~ [[User:QtheC|QtheC]]

::::::You are ignoring the possibility that the "challenger" might have a point. It is ''not'' "discouraging and unproductive" to have someone remove useless or wrong information from the pages.
::::::If the additions were valid, they will be backed by the community and reinserted. If not, it was good the "challenger" was there and had his eyes open.
:::::::~ [[User:Renegade|Renegade]] ([[User talk:Renegade|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Renegade|contribs]]) 20:00, 6 April 2008 (CDT)

:::::::Yes, the "challenger" might have a point.  Then again, they might not have a very good point.  Or there might be a difference of opinion.  What I am interested in is the process that is followed when a well-meaning addition appears.  I am advocating a burden on the "challenger" to provide explanation, and if the originator disagrees, to look for alternatives if possible and reach a resolution as I listed above.  It is not enough, in my view, to simply delete someone else's contributions arbitrarily.  Again, imagine the scenario I described, and how you would feel under those circumstances. ~ [[User:QtheC|QtheC]] 23:10, 6 April 2008 (CDT)

::::::::And exactly there is the flaw. The original revision is proven by time already. The new revision got instantly disputed. It is already proven the original revision works for everyone but the one who made the change. The one who made the change is the one acting. ''He'' made the change, and ''his'' change was disputed. So ''he'' has to justify why he wants to change what everyone else accepts, not the community has to explain why it likes the status quo.
::::::::The challenger is not doing much. The action comes from the one changing the page. Actually, it's insane to even argue against this, given that the challenger would never even challenge anything if there was nothing to challenge. The editor acts. The challenger reacts. The challenger merely preserves the status quo and examines the action. The actor, the editor, is the one who has to justify the action. It's a basic burden of proof thing.
::::::::I think you misunderstand something about the common process. This is not about simply reverting and then walking away to leave the editor behind crying. The challenger ''can'' be wrong, and the community ''can'' overturn the revert. But the question is "do we want this change?" not "okay, we have a change...do we like it, now that it has been forced down our throat?".
:::::::::~ [[User:Renegade|Renegade]] ([[User talk:Renegade|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Renegade|contribs]]) 01:55, 7 April 2008 (CDT)

:::::If someone is going to take the bold step of presuming to delete the addition someone else has made the effort to make to the LGPedia, it is not too much to ask for a sensible explanation and/or suggestions for alternatives (rather than simple negation).  Contributors should be encouraged, even if the contributions do not exactly "fit" previous expectations or patterns.
::::::~ [[User:QtheC|QtheC]] 18:34, 6 April 2008 (CDT) 

::::::Of course it's nice to have an explanation in the summary, and ''you yourself'' rightly complained about my lacking "wtf?" recently. Nevertheless, there has obviously not been any resistance against the base revision, otherwise it wouldn't be the base revision - since the new revision got reverted immediately, the new revision is already less accepted than the base revision. As such, the new revision is unfit to be the basis of discussion, and the one who wants to change an unchallenged revision into one that already got opposed should explain why he wants to do that.
::::::If his explanations are reasonable, they will be backed by the community and his changes reinserted. If not, it was good the "challenger" was there and had his eyes open.
:::::::~ [[User:Renegade|Renegade]] ([[User talk:Renegade|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Renegade|contribs]]) 20:00, 6 April 2008 (CDT)

::::{{quote|QtheC|What I have suggested was clearly and well-stated in my previous comment, and other than restating it, I can't really add much.  My point is that the focus should be on encouraging well-intended content addtions, and finding ways to include rather than exclude information in this shared resource.  Within this focus, it makes sense that there will be some more strictly formatted pages that are core LGPedia reference material (such as the home index pages and the video description pages), and some more loosely formatted pages (such as fan pages).  Please don't extrapolate from that reasonable position to an absurd one - that's unfair and unreasonable.}}
::::Not every information is equal. It is ridiculous to assume every addition is automatically better than any removal. In many cases, it makes sense to remove redundant, confusing or otherwise "bad" information. As such, it is unrealistic and, in fact, dangerous for the overall quality of LGPedia to primarily focus on and favor addition, addition, addition instead of accepting that healthy editing of a page includes selective removal as well. Addition is ''not'' by default better than removal. The question is ''what'' is changed on a page, not ''how'' it was changed. ~  [[User:Renegade|Renegade]]
:::::Actually, the question is how to best resolve the question when additions of content (or changes in content if you prefer) are disputed.
::::::~ [[User:QtheC|QtheC]] 18:34, 6 April 2008 (CDT)

::::::The answer to ''your'' question is a discussion on the basis of a revision that most people can agree on. Which is the previous  revision, which only got challenged by the one trying to change it.
:::::::~ [[User:Renegade|Renegade]] ([[User talk:Renegade|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Renegade|contribs]]) 20:00, 6 April 2008 (CDT)


::::{{quote|QtheC|As for Consent, which I agree is an important concept, the process I defined does allow for Consent, but with an emphasis on encouraging additions of content.  This is the central topic we are discussing here, as stated by Jonpro above, "the issue of whether to keep the disputed edit on the page during the discussion."}}
::::I think the answer to this paragraph is included in the previous ones, if you want a direct answer anyway, just say so.
:::::~ [[User:Renegade|Renegade]] ([[User talk:Renegade|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Renegade|contribs]]) 16:26, 6 April 2008 (CDT)
:::::Actually, I'm hoping to hear from some others on these questions, as I don't think we are making much progress towards resolution at this point.  Anyone care to refocus on the beginning of this discussion, or the particular issues as framed in Jonpro's original response above?
::::::~ [[User:QtheC|QtheC]] 18:34, 6 April 2008 (CDT)

::::::Heh, nice try. I don't think you can convince them not to read my posts, though.
:::::::~ [[User:Renegade|Renegade]] ([[User talk:Renegade|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Renegade|contribs]]) 20:00, 6 April 2008 (CDT)

----
==Resetting the Discussion on 'Lesser Deletion Policy'==
I don't know if this will work, but I think the back and forth discussion above between Renegade and myself has reached a point where we are repeating ourselves.  If there are further remarks to be made there feel free to add them within that discussion.  But I thought it might be worth drawing a line here and inviting a reset of the conversation on what I hope will lead to closure.

The goal of this section is to reach agreement on a "Lesser Deletion Policy."

::::{{quote|Jonpro|Now, on the issue of whether to keep the disputed edit on the page during the discussion, I'd like to hear other peoples' opinions. I think there are good arguments on both sides, so I'd like to hear what other people think.}}

:If you want to restart the discussion anyway, I suggest doing it [[LGPedia:Lucy's Balcony#Written policies needed: Disputing edits & commenting etiquette|here]]. The proposal at the top is simply to create a written policy for these situations. It does not put up a specific point of view for vote. I did lay out my own point of view already, so if you want to re-start anyway, laying out yours against it would show everybody the two proposed ways, and we could discuss which one to make official. That's better than simply arguing whether yours should be made official or not, potentially ending up with ''no'' written policy in the end again.
::~ [[User:Renegade|Renegade]] ([[User talk:Renegade|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Renegade|contribs]]) 01:55, 7 April 2008 (CDT)